Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

habitat1 · September 2007

The car doesn't appeal to me for a number of reasons (size, weight, bling factor), but I respect that it doesn't try to beat BMW at their own game.

It's not a matter of beating BMW at their own game.

It is a matter of putting out a seriously competent competitor, however they decide to position it relative to the other competiotrs. The Corvette is one of the least likely cars to ever make it into my garage, over a 911 or 430. But I respect that, for what it does, it is a very competent car. Cadillac has never, and still doesn't, garnish any of the same respect.

I would also respectfully suggest that, before you extrapolate what "Americans" want, if the new CTS were built by a Japanese company, they would likely sell about 5 in the entire U.S. I think without the "buy American" loyalty, GM would have been completely bankrupt a decade ago.

kdshapiro · September 2007

"I think without the "buy American" loyalty,"

I clearly have a buy American loyalty and would if:

1. I could find a product that was made, designed and built 100% in America by Americans, in companies headquartered in America (not saying companies can't import raw materials not found in the US)
2. Product is as good and hopefully better as non-American products,
3. Cost is competitive.

In general, sadly the "Made In America" moniker has been reduced to meaning the "Made In America" stamp is stamped in America.

fedlawman · September 2007

"It is a matter of putting out a seriously competent competitor, however they decide to position it relative to the other competiotrs."

I respect your opinion, but I find it hard to believe that the new CTS is as inferior in design and performance as you say it is. Since I haven't seen or driven it for myself yet, I will not confirm or refute your opinions until I do.

"I would also respectfully suggest that, before you extrapolate what "Americans" want, if the new CTS were built by a Japanese company, they would likely sell about 5 in the entire U.S."

I disagree. Again, without commenting on the performance of the CTS (since I have not driven it), I think Toyota is a great example of a Japanese company building cars that Americans want. I cringe every time I see a Solara - or how about the Solara GT I saw a middle-aged man driving the other day!

"I think without the "buy American" loyalty, GM would have been completely bankrupt a decade ago."

I think it's GM's pricing structure and incentives that have sold their cars, not brand loyalty. But today, I see GM finally making real progress with Cadillac, Saturn, and GMC/Chevy trucks.

Only time will tell - and I'll try to check out the CTS this weekend and report back with my opinion.

designman · September 2007

I expect to see this label soon:

Outsourced in America

markcincinnati · September 2007

I do like the CTS, I will certainly consider one in early 2008, assuming they (GM) offer discounts and subvented leases as they have done time and again.

At the MSRP "as I would configure" the CTS, it is a fine car but -- other than fit and finish and its styling -- it "seems to be as current as many of the other guys were putting out in the second half of 2004."

For a typical second or third quarter GM discount, however, it will be attractive even to someone like me who thinks it is not exactly leading edge (although the DI engine seems very fine, indeed.)

On the issue of voice activation -- I have a current gen Audi A6. It has 82 buttons, knobs, switches, dials, gauges and/or controls (not including my phone.) I have the in-armrest mounted phone dock AND the thing has bluetooth. I rarely, due to the the in armrest cradle, activate bluetooth -- but I use the voice control for the audio, nav and telephone system -- almost literally every time I get into the car.

I consider it a safety feature.

Were a vote be presented to the voters of the US, I would, uncharacteristically, vote to ban the use of a cell phone in a car that was not entirely voice controlled (hand and eyes free.)

When I am driving, I often look at the other drivers on the road; I see the majority of them on the phone (driving with one hand and I assume one eye on the road and controls.)

Much as I want "you" to have the personal freedom to kill yourself by using a phone while driving (if that is your goal), I just don't want to be on the highway with you.

Much as I want (well, maybe) more knobs and buttons and dials and gizmos to be confronting me whilst I am behind the wheel, it is getting to the point that it is distracting to change the channel (and find other controls in the sea of buttons) without voice command.

My wife's 2005 BMW does not need voice command. The new CTS is populated with buttons, dials, rotary switches -- a virtual maze of controls. Just tell your car what you want it to do, or "pull over" -- folks don't want to pull over and voice command is becoming (or in the case of the Germans, already has become) a virtual safety option.

At age 56, I may be a yuppie. Beats me.

jwaggoner · September 2007

Has anyone sat in a 1 series yet? Im 6'1 and just wondering if i can fit in this car. What about passenger space?

pat · September 2007

We are not here to talk about other members as you all well know.

Is the 1-Series out now? I didn't know that if it is.

sevenfeet0 · September 2007

Agreed. This forum is supposed to be about things that most of us enjoy as a passtime, or certainly a drivetime. Manufacturers compete for our dollars fiercely in this space and like most things concerning marketing, most of us are conditioned to preferences after a while, even decending into "fanboyism". I admit it, I have preferences with certain brands over others. But I want all of them to deliver the best product possible since it's impossible for the products from one brand to satisfy everyone. After all, if everyone just bought "your favorite brand", it would be a pretty boring place.

Regarding the two brands at issue here, Cadillac has been going down this "Europeanism" trend for a long time before the CTS, often with lousy results. I can remember the 1976 Seville, the 1982 Cimarron, the 1989 Allante and the 1997 Catera as examples. Cadillac has had the unenvyable position of trying to rewrite their DNA for decades now, which isn't easy. Even with Bob Lutz at the helm, a former GM engine manager once told me that GM's corporate culture doesn't do much to reward risk...in fact, the company (and especially Cadillac) got very risk averse over the last 30 years. Witness the 1981 V8-6-4 engine failure, the 1982 Cimarron, the 1989 Allante and Catera projects all made Caddy very adverse making the product decisions they need to make.

Constrast that with BMW. The BMW we all know really got off the ground in the early '70s with the first 2002s. Originally in the shadow of Mercedes and Audi, they made their mark with great handling sedans and coupes that were contrary to what most American buyers were used to seeing. Were all these products successful? Not a chance. The 320 program of the early '80s (especially the 320e) weren't home run hits. The 12-cylinder 850s lanquished on dealer lots and recent models were fiercely criticized for Bangle styling and iDrive. But the path to where BMW is now has been fairly straightforward to the point where they command many of the segments they compete in.

In business, it's interesting to watch the players that do most everything right but its far more fun and educational to see the ones that were once powerful fall from grace and claw themselves back to relevance. Apple Computer is a classic example. Cadillac is trying to do the same thing (against bigger odds in my opinion). What happens next? Who knows? But the marketplace will decide.

cdnpinhead · September 2007

". . .the 1976 Seville, the 1982 Cimarron, the 1989 Allante and the 1997 Catera. . ."

I was around for all of these, but only paid attention to the Catera. Prior to that, I was driving sports cars & wouldn't have been caught dead in a Cadillac.

Now, I'm not so sure.

circlew · September 2007

I was driving sports cars & wouldn't have been caught dead in a Cadillac.

Now, I'm not so sure.

That's a fair statement. But you would be caught behind in one! At lease for now.

I back up that view since there is no better performing car offered by GM/Chryler/Ford compared to the 3 series in the sedan class, IMO. And I will admit I always considered the E36/46 were to small for my tastes predominantly because I was used to U.S. market fare. I believed the Buy America was the way to go until it made little sense at the end of the day. I was surprised at the weight of my 330 considering the compact designation, however. I guess BMW compromised from the original design strategy. But the suspension still is to die for. I could care less for the perceived image factor. You could slice off the roundel and it would still be in my garage.

I agree it is fun to see what the "Hurtin' Three" will do to put the train back on the tracks. The Camaro and Challenger coming back from the dead will be interesting.

For GM, Cadillac needs a heck of a lot more work to do. Buick/Pontiac is on life support and the prognosis is NOT good. Chevy holds their own as does GMC for the small car/Trucks. Imagine if pick-ups loose huge sales. What then?

Ford???? I guess the plug has been pulled but the body is not cold yet.

It would be nice to see all three come back but I won't hold my breath. Lot's of changes still need to be made. The competition is killing them all.

Regards,
OW

150mphclub · September 2007

The standard engine comes with the manual as standard equipment. The direct injection engine comes with automatic standard, BUT there is a "delete automatic" code that allows you to get the manual, and provides a deduction from the vehicle price.

scottm123 · September 2007

I can't wait to see the new Camaro and Challenger on the streets.
I'm sure they're a blast to drive, but they won't fit into this segment at all.
Pontiac also have the G8 coming out, which is also offering a 360+ HP V8... but have you seen the interior??? Yuck!
I've built R/C cars as a kid showing higher levels of quality.

Ford and GM offer nothing within the EL"L"PS that intrigues me.
I'm too busy watching Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, and Audi to see what they'll be doing next.

plekto · September 2007

And as long as GM and Ford sell enormous numbers of larger cars and SUVs - well over half of their entire production, why should they get stuck trying to make a small luxury car?

Every time that they have done it, it's been a flop and/or hasn't made them a dime and only hurt their image. The closest that they have come is Volvo and Saab's offerings.

But designing to compete in the ELLPS market? I can't blame them for running from it as fast as they can.

circlew · September 2007

Why should they make any cars at all? They are all inferior, IMHO.

Regards,
OW

circlew · September 2007

Looks like a slow start is on tap for Caddy and the CTS...unless Lexus or BMW can be enticed to bow as outsource partners!!! :P

UAW Calls National Strike Against GM

DETROIT (AP) -- Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at General Motors plants around the country Monday in the first nationwide strike against the U.S. auto industry since 1976.

Ah, yes, let's see...1976, just 5 years into the product downturn. I remember it well.

Regards,
OW

pucks · September 2007

Hopefully the GM plant that produces the automatic transmissions for BMW is on strike as well. Probably not that lucky, though.

shipo · September 2007

I don't believe that GM is producing BMW automatic transmission any longer. IIRC, all BMW automatics are now built by ZF.

Best Regards,
Shipo

circlew · September 2007

If the United Auto Workers strike against General Motors Corp. lasts longer than a week or two, it could cost GM billions of dollars and stop the momentum the company was building with some of its new models, according to several industry analysts.

Regards,
OW

wardm · September 2007

GM should fire anyone out on strike and hire someone who wants to work. Unions have a stranglehold on several sectors of US industry which will eventually cripple those industries and, in turn, hurt the US and its ability to compete.

circlew · September 2007

Agreed. In addition, that is one big reason why, IMHO, the US products are not competitive. Poor management is not relegated to the top Executive but also Labor Management.

Regards,
OW

150mphclub · September 2007

You cannot get a job at GM unless you belong to the UAW. If you try to cross the picket line, union goons will hurt you.

wardm · September 2007

I may be wrong but I don't think that the U.S. auto plants of Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc., that are in various parts of the U.S. have union labor. Regardless, if I were GM I would either find a way to eliminate UAW from my plants or move the plants to Mexico. Perhaps providing jobs in Mexico would help reduce illegal immigration. Let the laid off UAW workers cut our grass, clean our houses, pick our crops, etc. Could be a win win situation.

markcincinnati · September 2007

If it were only that easy, that simple.

My concern is that the unions (among other things) may slowly force GM out of biz.

The talking heads claim the union is on strike for "job security."

:confuse:

It appears the actions being taken may actually have the opposite effect -- at least that seems to be one of the outcomes that COULD happen.

Here in Cincinnati, where the Camaro used to be produced, the GM union workers went on strike and kept squeezing and squeezing GM. GM responded by saying, "if you keep doing this, we'll have to shut the plant down here in Norwood."

Then "all of a sudden" GM says, "we can't make a go of it here anymore" -- and "all of a sudden" the union, in response, threatened productivity.

Too little, too late.

This account is a summary, is incomplete and is somewhat light on the facts, since it was certainly NOT solely the union that killed GM here in Cincinnati (Hamilton, Oh and Norwood, Oh.)

The point is, with over $1,500 in "burden" per car produced, we should not be surprised to see cars made by companies that have a "comparative advantage."

habitat1 · September 2007

I saw a report on CNBC this morning indicating that GM's labor costs are, on the average $30 to $40 per hour HIGHER than their competitors at Toyota and Honda, when you factor in all of the fringe benefits, health care costs, etc.

Now I don't mean to sound elitist, but I find it excessive that the average autoworker would even MAKE $30 to $40 per hour, with benefits. The vast majority of these assembly line and plant jobs do not require a college education and are nominally more "skilled" than the average service worker. It's nice to think that somebody with a high school education can punch a clock for 40 hours per week, have 4-5 weeks of vacation a year, and make the equivalent of $120-150,000+ per year ($60k-$80k more than their Toyota counterparts). But that's just a bit ridiculous when the average pediatrician with 8-10+ years of post graduate education barely makes that.

And they want lifetime job security? Well who the hell wouldn't with a bonanza like that?

louiswei · September 2007

SHOCKING!!!

Hab, this is the first time that you and I actually agree on something.

:surprise: :surprise: :surprise:

If an engineer with a master degree working for a big aerospace company in Southern California is making $37 per hour as starting salary then I think those UAW autoworkers are way overpaid.

Me too not trying to sound like an elitist here...

blueguydotcom · September 2007

You don't sound like an elitist. It makes sense that people with specialized schooling and industry-specific knowledge should be compensated more than someone who must tighten bolts or check for gaps in paneling.

I'm pretty confident that most people working in the automotive world could not step into my job on-the-fly and be up to speed in a week or two. Flipside, longshoremen and autoworkers are employed in what are traditionally considered blue collar jobs: little specific education to carry out the tasks and those tasks have become highly automated.

plekto · September 2007

The problem is that the UAW's "Job Security" essentially ties GM's hands. They want to get rid of the entire Job Bank and many part-timers to lower costs, but the union won't budge.

Unfortunately, for GM, it's trim the workforce or shut its doors in the U.S. and move overseas. Zero other options. So the UAW just effectively shot itself in the foot because GM is back against a wall with no way out.(and logically, as a result, no room to negotiate). They sucked and sucked and sucked at that teat until it just gave out.

GM's best move at this point? Fire the entire UAW and hire the employees on their own terms(or hire new workers). They really have no other choice. Given how our economy is going downhill, I suspect most of the workers will give in sooner or later if it's a choice between accepting less money and having their car and house payments or having their pride. The rest they can hire.

Now, I'm personally a supporter of MOST unions, but it's a give and take scenario. I've seen the UAW do noting but take for two decades or more and it's finally made GM decide that opting out is less painful than negotiating. I don't really blame them, either.

wardm · September 2007

Plekto,

I can't think of a single union that I am in favor of. I work for an organization that puts on trade shows for its constituents at various convention centers throughout the U.S.. We have to deal with the unions in most of those cities in order to set up our events. Productivity comes to a screeching halt because of the unions. We can't even move a box from one room to another without having a union person do it. And it's not like they come running when you need them.

I recall when I was in high school in the Washington D.C. area I had a friend who worked as a cashier in a grocery store. He was making twice what I made at the local hardware store and got double time on Saturdays and triple time on Sundays and holidays. It was ridiculous.

Around the same time frame, late 1970's, I new of a person who lived near my Aunt in Gadsden, Alabama who made $22.00 per hour sweeping floors at the local steel plant. That's over $45,000 in 1978!!! Unfortunately, the steel plant closed, probably because of having to pay ridiculous wages (and benefits).

Unions are choking American industry.

habitat1 · September 2007

Aw, come on Louiswie, I'm pretty sure there are quite a few more things out there that we can agree on. But it helps sharpens our communication skills to debate those that we don't.

blueguydotcom · September 2007

Just read Edmunds review of the lackluster CTS. Wow. That caddy CTS weighs almost 4k? My god that's sick. Good grief, the e60 535 is only 3650 lbs. I can't believe I wrote only next to 3650 lbs but compared to the CTS it looks feather-light. Sad that they would even hint that a car this heavy is decent driving...typical of auto journalists: reviewing Caddy with different expectations just like they did the last generation.

The performance of the two cars isn't really close either.

Caddy:
0-60 in 6.5 sec
1/4 in 14.9@94.6
.85 Skidpad
67 mph slalom

335i
0-60 in 4.9 sec
1/4 mi in 13.4@103.9
.90 skidpad
68.2 mph slalom
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=120903/pageNumber=7

These cars supposedly compete? Huh?

circlew · September 2007

But look at the "Mark of Excellence" on the products they turn out!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Regards,
OW

pat · September 2007

wander on back to the cars here, folks. I'm sure there is plenty of conversation in Auto News about the strike, UAW, unions in general, GM, etc.

circlew · September 2007

You struck a great point the CTS is a 'tweener in the middle of the 3 and 5 series. It should be on it's own forum! With the Lincoln!

Regards,
OW

imidazol97 · September 2007

United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)

louiswei · September 2007

Come on, compare to Lincoln Cadillac is like the BMW...

Ford should really put Lincoln out of its misery.

In the article seems to me that most of the performance are due to the sticky Michelin Pilot Sport SP2 tires which are found in some Porsches. If I am not mistaken the standard tire for the 335i is Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFT Runflat which doesn't perform quiet as well as the SP2. The 335i's performance numbers should be much better with the SP2 and further distinguish itself from the CTS.

However, one thing nobody can deny is that the CTS is currently the interior standard of the segment. The quality of materials and fit-'n-finish is just amazing, but both the front and rear seats can be comfortable though.

Exterior styling of this car is not my cup of tea. Too big, too edgy and too much chrome. The massive grille is just hilarious looking and I doubt it'll age well through time. I much prefer old CTS's exterior over the new one.

Probably not going to drive it since I have no interest in getting one but overall it looks like a solid entry from Caddy. I can see that it'll sell well here in the states but that's pretty much it.

blueguydotcom · September 2007

New tires helped my e90 tremendously.

As for the other stuff...I've only seen pictures but to my eyes it's too busy. I love Spartan interiors; too much seems to be happening in the CTS. Too much chromey-stuff too. I'll get to it in 09/10 when I have to buy a new car.

shipo · September 2007

"However, one thing nobody can deny is that the CTS is currently the interior standard of the segment. The quality of materials and fit-'n-finish is just amazing, but both the front and rear seats can be comfortable though."

I for one will deny it. I found the interior to be of no better physical quality than any other car in the class, poorly laid out and gaudy. Not my personal cup of tea.

Best Regards,
Shipo

sevenfeet0 · September 2007

Are you completely serious in your arguments or are you just trying to be funny? First, this was probably one of the best reviews Cadillac could have hoped for. It went out of its way to say that Cadillac (and GM) had produced a vehicle that isn't saddled by the problems of previous vehicles.

But what still gets my undies in a crunch is people around here directly comparing the CTS to the BMW 3 series. Oh sure Cadillac wouldn't mind some 3-seried buyers cross shopping since they don't have a car in that space (in America) and probably won't for another 2 years. But it's completely unfair to compare the CTS to a smaller, lighter vehicle.

Don't believe me? Check out the specs between like vehicles in the class:

Cadillac CTS
Wheelbase: 113.4"
Length: 191.6"
Width: 72.5"
Curb Weight: 3900+ lbs
EPA Class: Midsize

BMW 535i
Wheelbase: 113.7"
Length: 191.1"
Width: 72.7"
Curb Weight: 3650 lbs
EPA Class: Midsize

Mercedes-Benz E350
Wheelbase: 112.4"
Length: 191"
Width: 71.7"
Curb Weight: 3740 lbs
EPA Class: Midsize

Audi A6 3.2 (non-quattro)
Wheelbase: 111.9"
Length: 193.5"
Width: 71.3"
Curb Weight: 3858 lbs
EPA Class: Midsize

Lexus GS350
Wheelbase: 112.2"
Length: 190"
Width: 71.7"
Curb Weight: 3704 lbs
EPA Class: Midsize

Infiniti M35
Wheelbase: 114.2"
Length: 192.6"
Width: 70.8"
Curb Weight: 4043 lbs
EPA Class: Midsize

Now, compare those vehicles to the BMW 3-series:

BMW 335i
Wheelbase: 108.7"
Length: 178.2"
Width: 71.5"
Curb Weight: 3593 lbs
EPA Class: Compact

The BMW 3-series has a wheelbase 5 inches shorter on average and about a foot in total length shorter than all the above mentioned vehicles. It's interior size is a whole 'nother EPA category. Bottom line is that the CTS is the new 5-series/E-class competitor to this space. Get used to it. It's just that the old competitor in this class for Caddy (the STS) hasn't died yet. But Cadillac has already publically stated that the STS (and DTS) will die in favor of a new large flagship car, while a smaller "B-series" car will slot under the CTS in the next couple of years.

Yes the CTS is on the heavy side and that's been a problem for GM's Sigma platform in general. In this class, only the Infiniti M35 weighs a tick more. But they got so many other parts of the car right. Yes, entry to the backseat is cramped, but frankly, I don't have rear passengers often unless they are my kids.

The CTS is now missing a couple of major features to properly compete in this space: a V8 engine option that's not a hot-rod (a la M-series/AMG/S & RS-class/V-series). I fully expect GM to retify that situation when the next-gen Northstar appears in a year or two. With a new CTS-V also due on the horizon, that means the STS can be put out to pasture. The second major issue is body styles. I already know a wagon is in the works and a coupe should be coming at some point.

sevenfeet0 · September 2007

I've spent a few hours in this car's interior. Please explain what is "poorly laid out" and "gaudy". Also, please give an example of what is a better example of the class.

habitat1 · September 2007

Also, please give an example of what is a better example of the class.

Throw a dart at ANY of the other cars from your midsize list.

The BMW 3-series has a wheelbase 5 inches shorter on average and about a foot in total length shorter than all the above mentioned vehicles. It's interior size is a whole 'nother EPA category. Bottom line is that the CTS is the new 5-series/E-class competitor to this space.

... Yes, entry to the backseat is cramped, but frankly, I don't have rear passengers often unless they are my kids.

A little bi-polar feeling today? A mid size E-class or 5-series isn't "cramped" in the back for adults, so regardless of what the EPA says, the CTS doesn't compete in useable size. And if all you need to do is put kids in the rear seat, why would you buy a bloated 2-ton "not really mid size" car?

shipo · September 2007

Poorly laid out:
The various controls that are often actuated, especially HVAC and window controls were difficult to reach comfortably and difficult to manipulate without having to take my eyes off the road. As for gaudy, well, admittedly that is personal taste, but there's waay too much bright work in the instrument cluster and dash for me.

As for better in the class, once again that's a matter of personal taste. I find that the Audi A3, A4 and A6 have arguably the best dash and control layout of the bunch, and while I'm not as fond of the newer/less driver centric control layout of recent BMWs, even that interior seems far more functional and logically laid out. Geez, I even think the Lexus IS is better done than the CTS, and I am NOT a fan of the IS at all.

Best Regards,
Shipo

shipo · September 2007

I see, so if someone doesn't like what you like they're snobs? Yeesh!

blueguydotcom · September 2007

But it's completely unfair to compare the CTS to a smaller, lighter vehicle.

The 535i is the same size but is 300 lbs lighter. Shrug.

Bottom line is that the CTS is the new 5-series/E-class competitor to this space. Get used to it.

It's a competitor to neither the 3 nor the 5.

Yes the CTS is on the heavy side and that's been a problem for GM's Sigma platform in general. In this class, only the Infiniti M35 weighs a tick more. But they got so many other parts of the car right. Yes, entry to the backseat is cramped, but frankly, I don't have rear passengers often unless they are my kids.

Then what's the hangup on a barge like a 5 or CTS? Seriously you just went on and on about epa space and then come back by saying it's not important to you. So what is important? If space isn't an issue, then why opt for a car of that size?

The CTS is now missing a couple of major features to properly compete in this space: a V8 engine option that's not a hot-rod (a la M-series/AMG/S & RS-class/V-series).

Huh? 5 series and 3 series both have 3.0 300 hp engines compared to the Caddy's 300 hp V6. Strangely, that 300 hp 6 in the 5 and 3 propels both cars with electrifying power. What exactly is wrong with GM's engine development? The weight can't be totally to blame for the slowness of the CTS.

circlew · September 2007

pucks, nice job on the post. Got anything positive to add? :confuse:

Regards,
OW

sevenfeet0 · September 2007

Well, part of the reason the back seat room isn't a priority for me is because of my physical size. I'm nearly 7 feet tall, so shopping for a car is like being fitted for a suit. Since most car companies don't cater to someone my size, my shopping short list ends up very short. For example, the Mercedes E class, BMW 5 series both don't have enough room for my legs and knees. The Audi A6 is even worse. The Lexus GS doesn't have enough head room (the ES is better). The only CTS competitors I've driven that I fit into are the Infiniti M35 and the Acura RL.

One of the reasons I liked the previous CTS was because it had enough leg room and knee room for me....barely enough, but it was enough. I was very afraid that the next generation car wasn't going to have enough room for me. Instead, I found that the front leg room and knee room was far better than the outgoing vehicle.

So when you say that the CTS doesn't compete in "usable space", I would only say that I consider the extra room I get in the front seat versus the rear seat far more important for me concerning "usable space".

blueguydotcom · September 2007

Wow, interesting. Can't argue with that. Why not go with a FWD car and get all that space back?

circlew · September 2007

Well, no ELLPS can be comfortable for you! Go with the M35/45, IMO.

Regards,
OW

150mphclub · September 2007

I am with you sevenfeet. I sometimes drive 700 miles in a day. The CTS and the M35 are the only two cars on your list that would NOT have me squirming in discomfort for the last 100 miles. The BMW 3 would have me screaming in agony for that last 100.

texases · September 2007

I'm convinced this is part of the reason X5s and Cayennes are as popular as they are, even though there's no real off-road time expected. How else can you carry 4 large adults around in comfort with some sporting pretense? None of the ELLPS will do it.

sevenfeet0 · September 2007

Shipo,

You're argument is a much better one than before...thanks! That's all I ask in a friendly debate. It's easy in a forum to end up doing the old "Monty Python Argument Sketch" in situations like this, especially when the debates often centers upon the objective and asthestic.

For the recond, I've always thought that Audi made the best interiors in this space but since I can't fit in the driver's seat, it's pretty moot. BMW interiors to me are competent but too austere for me. The new CTS interior is light years ahead of the old one. Not perfect (what is?) but competetive.

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles